Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 person is in fact an indigenous black person. The 1st appellant’s argument is that it is an indigenous black person because its shareholders are black indigenous natural persons. It is trite and a matter of elementary law that a company is a fictitious juristic legal entity with a separate and distinct legal existence apart from its shareholders. It is capable of owning property in its own right separate from that of its shareholders. It is an established principle of our law that a company’s property is not the property of its members, shareholders or directors. The principle was laid down in Salomon v Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 HL per LORD HALSBURY LC (30) when he said: “It seems to me impossible to dispute that once a company is legally incorporated it must be treated like any other independent person with its rights and liabilities appropriate to itself, and that the motives of those who took part in the promotion of the company are absolutely irrelevant in discussing what those rights and liabilities are.” From the above exposition of the law it follows that the first appellant TBIC Investments (Pvt) Ltd is a separate legal entity from its owners, shareholders and directors. The question to be addressed in the circumstances is whether a registered company can be classified as being of black or white race. In addressing that question it is important to note that a company has no real physical existence but it is merely an abstract fictitious legal entity. It has no physical existence, colour, flesh or blood. In Dadoo Ltd and Others v Krugersdorp 1920 AD 530 at 552 the Court held that: “A company cannot have an enemy character. In the words of BUCKLEY L. J, it has neither body parts nor passions; it cannot be loyal or disloyal.” From the authorities and pure common sense, it follows that a company has no colour or race. It does not adopt the colour or race of its owners, shareholders or directors. The 14